FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Article 19 (1) 1 of the Constitution, guarantees certain fundamental rights,

subject to the power of the State to impose restrictions on the exercise of
those rig hts. The Article was thus intended to protect these rights against
State action other than in the legitimate exercise of its power to regulate
private rights in the public interest.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
Expression is a matter of liberty and right. The liberty of thought and right to
know are the sources of expression . Free Speech is live wire of the
democracy. Freedom of expression is integral to the expansion and fulfillment
of individual personality. Freedom of expression is more essential in a
democratic setup of State where people are the Sovereign rulers. Iver
Jennings said, without freeqom of speech, the appeal to reason which is the
basis of democracy cannot be made. Milton in his Aeropagitica says that
without this freedom there can be no health in the moral and intellectual life
of either the individual or the nation.
According to Justice Krishna Iyer, "This freedom is essential because the
censorial power lies in the people over and against the Government and not
in the Government over and against the people."
The freedom of speech and expression is required to fulfill the following
objectives :
a} To discover truth
b} Non self-fulfillment
c) Democratic value
d} To ensure pluralism

The people of India gave to themselves, the Constitution of India, with a view
of make it Sovereign, Democratic, Socialistic, Secular and Republic. In our
democratic society, pride to place has been provided to freedom of speech
and expression, which is the mother of all liberties. One of the main objectives
of the Indian Constitution as envisages in the Preamble, is to secure LIBERTY
OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION to all the citizens. Freedom of Expression is
among the foremost of human rights. It is the communication and practical
application of individual freedom of thought. Irrespective of the system of
administration, various constitutions make a mention of the freedom of
expression .

In Bennett Coleman & co. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that
newspaper should be left free to determine their pages and their circulation .
This case arouse out of a constitutional challenge to the validity of the
Newspaper (Price & Page) Act, 1956 which empowered the Government to
regulate the allocation of space for advertisement matter. The court held
that the c urtailment of advertisements would fall foul of Article 19(1 )(a), since
it would have a direct impact on the circulation of newspapers. The court
held that any restriction leading to a loss of advertising revenue would affect
circ ulation and thereby impinge on the freedom of speech.

219
In Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, a challenge to the imposition
of customs duty on import of newsprint was allowed and the impugned levy
struck down. The Supreme Court held that the expression freedom of the
press though not expressly used in Article 19 was comprehended within
Article 19(1 )(a) and meant freedom from interference from authority which
would have the effect of interference with the content & the circulation of
newspapers.
In Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association,
Bengal, the Supreme Court held that broadcasting is a means of
communication and a medium of speech and expression with in the
framework of Article 19(1 )(a). This case involved the rights of a cricket
association to grant telecast rights to an agency of its choice. It was held that
the right to entertain and to be entertained, in this case, through the
broadcasting media are an integral part of the freedom under Article
19(l)(a).
Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees to all its citizens including
media "the right to freedom of speech and expression". Clause (2) of Article 19, at
the same time provides: "nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1 ) shall affect the
operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as
such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by
the said sub-clause in the interest of:-
a) Sovereignty and Integrity of India.
b) The Security of the State.
c) Friendly relations with foreign states.
d) Public order.
e) Decency or Morality.
f) Contempt of Court.
g) Defamation.
h) Incitement to an offence.

FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE
The freedom to assemble is of special interest within the realm of
constitutional law, since it is enabled and restricted by an intersection of the
constitutional text and the criminal procedure code. While the constitution
provides for it as a right, the procedural provisions radically restrict this
freedom , by empowering the state to regulate its expression and
peremptorily curtail it exercise. This rather contradictory approach is a
refection of a colonial legacy and the unquestioning adoption of most of the
provisions of the 1872 Code of Criminal Procedure by the contemporary
Indian State. It is logical that the colonial state maintained a legal framework
that enabled a quick breakup of any sort of organising, meeting, association
or assembly that could threaten it. It is unfortunate that the modern India
continues this legacy, both in the context of assembly and association rights.
In Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, the Supreme Court considered
the question as to whether the requirement that prior permission in writing
from the police before holding a public meeting on a public street violated
the Petitioners Article 19 (1) rights? Here the rule in question enabled the

220
 Commissioner or an officer designated by her to refuse permission for such a
meeting .
Chief Justice Sikri writing for the majority distinguished between a statutory
provision that
enabled the regulation of conduct of persons in assemblies and processions
and a rule that enabled the refusal of permission to hold public meetings on
public streets without guidelines being prescribed for the officer responsible.
He found no fault with the prior permission requirement, as according to him
"the right which flows from Art. 19 ( 1) (b) is not a right to hold a meeting at
any place and time. It is a right which can be regulated." He invalidated the
arbitrary powers conferred on the officer authorised by the Commissioner of
Police.
In Kameshwar Prasad v State of Bihar, a rule that prohibited any form of
demonstrations by government employees was examined. Th e court reasons
that a government servant, did not lose her fundamental rights, and that the
ru le by prohibiting both orderly or disorderly demonstrations violates Article 19
(1) (b) . The Court did not take issue with the notion that governmental
employees as a class could have their rights or freedoms burdened. The apex
court explains that "by accepting the contention that the freedoms
guaranteed by Part Ill and in particular those in Article 19 (1) (a) apply to the
servants of Government we should not be taken to imply that in relation to
this class of citizens the responsibility arising from the official positi on would
not by itself impose some limitations on the exercise of t_ heir rights as citizens".
Restrictions on the freedom of assembly
Article 19 (3) of the Constitution provides that nothing in the right to assemble
peaceably shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it
imposes, or prevents the State from making any law imposing, in the interests
of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of that right. The restrictions pertaining to
sovereignty and intergrity were added after the adoption o f the Constitution.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

Article 19(1 )(c) of the Constitution of India guarante~s to all its citizens the
right "to form associatio·ns and unions or cooperative societies" Under clause
(4) of Article 19, the state may by law impose reasonable restrictions on this
right in the interest of public order or morality or the sovereignty and integrity
of India . The right to form associations or unions or cooperative societies has a
very wide and varied scope including all sorts of associations viz., political
parties, clubs, societies, companies, organizations, entrepreneurships, trade
unions etc.

The right to form trade unions should not lead to the conclusion tha t trade
unions have a guaranteed right to an effective collective bargaining or to
strike as a part of collective bargaining or otherwise. The right to strike or to
declare a lock-out may be controlled or restricted by various industrial
legislations such as Industrial Dispute Act or Trade Unions Act.
Right to form association does not carry the right to recognition

221
Right to form association does not carry the right to strike

Right to form association does not carry the right to inform rival union
Freedom of association and government employees
In O.K Ghosh v. E.X.Joseph , the respondent, a government servant was the secretary
of the civil accounts association. The appellant was the accountant general of
Maharashtra. A memo was served on the respondent intimating him that it was
proposed to hold an enquiry againsf him for having deliberately contravened the
provisions of Rule 4-A of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1955 in so far as he
participated actively in various demonstrations organized in connection with the
strike of the central government employees and had ta ken active part in the
preparations made for the strike. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High
Court of Bombay with a prayer that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash the charge
sheet issued against him. He also prayed for a writ of prohibition against the
appellant prohibiting him from proceeding further with the departmental
proceedings against him. The respondent Joseph also contended that Rules 4-A and
4-B were invalid as they contravened the fundamenta l right guaranteed to him
under 19(1 )(a)(b)(c) and (g). The High Court held that Rule 4-A was wholly va lid but
Rule 4-B was invalid. Rule 4-A provided that no government servant shall participate
in any demonstration or resort to any form of strike in connection with any matter
pertaining to his conditions of service. Rule B provided that no government servant
shall join or continue to be a member of any service a ssociation w hich the
government did not recognize or in respect of which the recognition had been
refused or withdrawn by it. As both parties were not satisfied with the judgement
given in the High court they preferred appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that Rule 4-A in so far as it prohibited the
demonstration of employees was violative of fundamental rights guaranteed
by Article 19( 1) (a) and (b) , that the High Court was wrong in conclusion. The
Supreme Court further held that participation in demonstration organized for
a strike and taking active part in preparations for it cannot mean
participation in the strike. The respondent could not be said to have taken
part in the strike and the proceedings against him under Rule 4-A were
invalid. The Supreme Court also held that Rule 4-B imposed restrictions on the
undoubted right of the government servants under Article 19 which were
neither reasonable in the interest of public order under Article 19(4) in
granting or withdrawing recognition, the government might be actuated by
considerations other than those of efficiency or discipline amongst the
services or public order. The restrictions imposed by Rule 4-B infringed Article
19(1)(c) and must be held to be invalid.
Restrictions on the Freedom of Association
The right of association like other individual freedom is not unrestricted.
Clause (4) of Article 19 empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions
on the right of freedom of association and union in the interest of "public
order" or "morality" or "sovereignty or integrity" of India. It saves existing laws in
so far a s they are not inconsistent with fundamental right of association.

222
FREEDOM TO MOVE FREELY THROUGHOUT THE TERRITORY OF IND/A
Article 19( 1) (d) guarantees to all citizens of India the right "to move freely
throughout the territory of India." This right is however, subject to reasonable
restrictions mentioned in clause (5) of Article 19, i.e. in the interest of general
public or for the protection of the interest of any Scheduled Tribe.
Article 19( 1) (d) of the Constitution guarantees to its citizens a right to go
wherever they like in Indian territory without any kind of restriction
wha tsoever. They can move not merely from one State to another but from
one place another within the same State. This freedom cannot be curtailed
by any law except within the limits prescribed under Article 19(5). What the
Constitution lays stress upon is that the entire territory is one unit so far the
citizens are concerned. Thus the object was to make Indian citizens national
minded and not to be petty and parochial.
Grounds of Restrictions - The· State may under clause (5) of Article 19 impose
reasonable restric tion on the freedom of movement on two grounds-
a) In the interests of general public
b) For the protection of the interest of Scheduled Tribes.

FREEDOM TO RESIDE AND SETTLE IN ANY PART OF THE TERRITORY OF INDIA

According to Article 19(1 )(e) every citizen of India has the right "to reside and
settle in any part of the territory of India." However, under clause (5) of Article
19 reasonable restriction may be imposed on this right by law in the interest of
the general public or for the protection of th e interest of any Scheduled Tribe.
The object of the clause is to remove internal barriers w ithin India or any o f its
parts. The words "the territory of India' as used in this Article indicate freedom
to reside anywhere and in any part of the State of India. ·
It is to be noted that the right to reside and right to move freely throughout
the country are complementary and often go together. Therefore most of
the cases considered under Article 19(1)(d) are relevant to Article 19(l)(e)
also. This right is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the
interest of general public or for the protection of the interests of any
Scheduled Tribes. Thus where a prostitute, under the Suppression of Immoral
Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, was ordered to remove herself from the
limits of a busy city or the restriction was placed on her movement and
residence, it was held to be a reasonable restriction.

FREEDOM TO PRACTISE ANY PROFESSION, OR TO CARRY ON ANY

OCCUPATION, TRADE OR BUSINESS

Article 19 (1) (g) of Constitution of India provides Right to practice any

profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens
subject to Art.19 (6) which enumerates the nature of restriction that can be
imposed by the state upon the above right of the citizens. Sub clause (g) of
Article 19 ( 1) confers a general and vast right available to all persons to do
any particular type of business of their choice. But this does not confer the
right to do anything consider illegal in eyes of law or to hold a particular job
or to oc cupy a particular post of the choice of any partic ular person . Further
Art 19( 1) (g) does not mean that c onditions be created by the state or any

223
statutory body to make any trade lucrative or to procure customers to the
business/businessman. Moreover a citizen whose occupation of a place is
unlawful cannot claim fundamental right to carry on business in such place
since the fundamental rights cannot be availed in the justification of an
unlawful act or in preventing a statutory authority from law fully discharging its
statutory functions.
Keeping in view of controlled and planned economy the Supreme Court in a
series of cases upheld the socially controlled legislation in the light of directive
principles and the activities of the private enterprises have been restricted to
a great extent. However under Article 19(6), the state is not prevented from
making a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the
fundamental right in the interest of the general public. A law relating to
professional or technical qualifications is necessary for practicing a
profession . A law laying down professional qualification will be protected
under Article 19(6).

Under article 19(6)(ii) nothing contained in Sub-clause(g) of Clause (1) of

Article 19 shall affect carrying on by the State any trade, business, industry or
service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial of citizens or otherwise
if it is not in the interest of general public. Article 19 (6) (ii) will have no
application if the State is not carrying on any trade.

224